Merged A Proof of the Existence of God / Did Someone Create the Universe?

[Buddha]

I can easily modify my proof be getting rid of the tape. Here it is:

1. The Universe is of infinite age.
There must be an observer or observers to verify that. But their evidence, whatever it might be, cannot be viewed in its entirety, so it cannot be accepted.

2. The universe came to be by itself, so to speak, as a result of some empirical process.
However, there was no observer to verify that, so this claim is baseless.

3. Someone created the universe.
In this case that someone is the Creator (or Creators) and the Observer at the time, so this hypothesis can be confirmed.
End of proof.

There are several theories regarding creation of the universe that do not involve God (or Gods), the theory of quantum fluctuation is one them, that contradict each other. Without the observer, how can anyone tell which one of them is correct?

 

[JayUtah]

[deleted]

 

[JayUtah]

3. Someone created the universe.
In this case that someone is the Creator (or Creators) and the Observer at the time, so this hypothesis can be confirmed.

Blatantly circular.

Without the observer, how can anyone tell which one of them is correct?

You postulate the existence of a creator because your desired proof requires one, not because there is one.

 

[JayUtah]

I can easily modify my proof be getting rid of the tape...

...which was your thought experiment invoking empiricism and empirical falsifiability. You insisted that you were not going to give an empirical proof, and even got rather nasty with me because I said you were. Now you're rewriting your proof to remove the empirical elements. Perhaps you think your critics don't pick up on these things.

They do.

 

[JayUtah]

[deleted]

 

[Dave Rogers]

I can easily modify my proof be getting rid of the tape.

What you can't get rid of, however, is the underlying circularity of the argument. Your starting axiom, though you may try to obscure this, is that only events that have been observed have actually occurred, including events that occurred prior to the emergence of an observer. This axiom demands the existence of a universal observer, which you call "God." Your proof therefore boils down to: If we start from the premise that God exists, then God exists.

Dave

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There must be an observer or observers to verify that. But their evidence, whatever it might be, cannot be viewed in its entirety, so it cannot be accepted.

2. The universe came to be by itself, so to speak, as a result of some empirical process.
However, there was no observer to verify that, so this claim is baseless.

3. Someone created the universe.
In this case that someone is the Creator (or Creators) and the Observer at the time, so this hypothesis can be confirmed.
End of proof.

In order for this to be the proof that you believe it to be, you will have to define "observer", prove the axiom that an observer must be present for it to be valid to say that an event happened (or at least make a cogent argument for it), and prove how these are the only three possible options.

Without the observer, how can anyone tell which one of them is correct?

This is an argument from incredulity/ignorance. This is a logical fallacy, and not a proof of or cogent argument for your axiom.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Blatantly circular.

I must admit that I'm getting a little pleasure from Buddha simplifying his proof to what I simplified it to when I was pointing out how it was assuming the consequent.

 

[halleyscomet]

I wish I could understand your line of reasoning. But I didn't play paper, rock, scissors in my childhood.

You don't need to have played the game. All you need to know is it's a circular game where if three people are playing and they all pick a different option, nobody wins. Everybody will have defeated someone and been defeated in turn.

Paper covers Rock.
Rock Breaks scissors.
Scissors cut paper.

The rock-paper-scissors game is really just a framework for the joke, which is a tangential parody of bad theistic arguments. Don't take it too personally.

 

[JayUtah]

I must admit that I'm getting a little pleasure from Buddha simplifying his proof to what I simplified it to when I was pointing out how it was assuming the consequent.

As much as I, watching him try to take me to task for allegedly misrepresenting him, then quietly removing the parts of his proof he said were misrepresented.

 

[halleyscomet]

Please clarify what article you are talking about.

That would be the article YOU promised to post. How, exactly, do you expect someone else to clarify on a promise you made? Do you pull that stunt at work?

This might disappoint you, but I am not going to get into a shouting match with you.

I'm not disappointed. The moderators here would never tolerate a shouting match anyway. I'm mocking your ideas because you're too cowardly and dishonest to address the issues I and others have raised about your "arguments" in the past. You don't care enough about your claims to engage in an honest discussion about them. Why should I show your ideas any more respect than you do?

I did this many times on Digg when it didn't have moderators. Now you can imagine how fast these matches deteriorate and what kind of 4-letter words they lead to. At that time I enjoyed insulting my opponents but now I see this tactics as a sign of weakness.

LOL! That sad attempt at an insult is rich coming from a guy who gleefully insults the intelligence of anyone he can't bring himself to respond to.

Keep it up. You're proving quite amusing.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You don't need to have played the game. All you need to know is it's a circular game where if three people are playing and they all pick a different option, nobody wins. Everybody will have defeated someone and been defeated in turn.

Paper covers Rock.
Rock Breaks scissors.
Scissors cut paper.

The rock-paper-scissors game is really just a framework for the joke, which is a tangential parody of bad theistic arguments. Don't take it too personally.

There's also the five-level, and equally workable, Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock expanded version, as featured on The Big Bang Theory - clearly a misnomer as nobody was present at the time of the Big Bang to observe it, and of course the deduction from the Hubble effect and the cosmic microwave background that the Big Bang occurred is invalid because it's inconvenient to Buddha's proof of some reason I haven't thought of yet.

Dave

 

[halleyscomet]

I could reproduce that proof in another thread. I didn't see it on the Internet. But before that I would have to prove that the reincarnation exists, which I am going to do at another thread after this one runs out.

What's your obsession with creating new threads? You've already made this thread into a catch-all for your assorted mythological claims you insist you can prove. You say you can prove there's a god, then post an easily vivisected attempt at proving there's a creator. You claim you don't have time to reply to criticism of that argument, yet you now want to dedicate time to a whole new thread where you make similarly lazy "fire and forget" argument about reincarnation.

Please, make an effort to focus. You claim you can prove there's a god. Post that alleged proof. Go on. At this point nobody is expecting you to do so. Following through on what you said you'd do will give you the element of surprise.

 

[halleyscomet]

There's also the five-level, and equally workable, Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock expanded version, as featured on The Big Bang Theory - clearly a misnomer as nobody was present at the time of the Big Bang to observe it, and of course the deduction from the Hubble effect and the cosmic microwave background that the Big Bang occurred is invalid because it's inconvenient to Buddha's proof of some reason I haven't thought of yet.

Dave

There are theistic explanations for the cosmic background radiation.

https://creation.com/recent-cosmic-microwave-background-data-supports-creationist-cosmologies

 

[halleyscomet]

There's also the five-level, and equally workable, Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock expanded version, as featured on The Big Bang Theory - clearly a misnomer as nobody was present at the time of the Big Bang to observe it, and of course the deduction from the Hubble effect and the cosmic microwave background that the Big Bang occurred is invalid because it's inconvenient to Buddha's proof of some reason I haven't thought of yet.

Dave

Making a Rock Paper Scissors game with an Arduino compatible device

 

[JayUtah]

Do not expect me to depart from this website in a near future. I have a plenty of other ideas that I would like to test in front of specific audiences including this one.

But you don't have time enough for this audience on this question. You said so. Further, you've shown no respect for this audience and have incorporated little if any of their feedback into your ideas. Your pattern is simply to present your ideas and dismiss all criticism.

 

[Crossbow]

I can easily modify my proof be getting rid of the tape. Here it is:

1. The Universe is of infinite age.
There must be an observer or observers to verify that. But their evidence, whatever it might be, cannot be viewed in its entirety, so it cannot be accepted.

2. The universe came to be by itself, so to speak, as a result of some empirical process.
However, there was no observer to verify that, so this claim is baseless.

3. Someone created the universe.
In this case that someone is the Creator (or Creators) and the Observer at the time, so this hypothesis can be confirmed.
End of proof.

There are several theories regarding creation of the universe that do not involve God (or Gods), the theory of quantum fluctuation is one them, that contradict each other. Without the observer, how can anyone tell which one of them is correct?

Your proof is a load of crap.

Just because one does not know all of the natural details of how the universe came into existence, that does not automatically mean that the universe was created by some sort of supernatural force (such as this "Creator" or "Creators" that you so often speak of).

As I have told you before, humans been trying to objectively prove the existence of some sort of supernatural being, or supernatural beings, ever since there were humans; and yet in spite all of this tremendous effort over several millennia, no such objective proof has ever been demonstrated.

Therefore, your work is a failure just like all of the preceding works on this subject have been a failure.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay since this is apparently a difficult concept.

Here's how it should go: You look at all the evidence and form a conclusion.

Here's how it shouldn't go: You decided what conclusion you want, and go back to find evidence that you can twist to support it.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I can easily modify my proof be getting rid of the tape. Here it is:

1. The Universe is of infinite age.
There must be an observer or observers to verify that. But their evidence, whatever it might be, cannot be viewed in its entirety, so it cannot be accepted.

2. The universe came to be by itself, so to speak, as a result of some empirical process.
However, there was no observer to verify that, so this claim is baseless.

3. Someone created the universe.
In this case that someone is the Creator (or Creators) and the Observer at the time, so this hypothesis can be confirmed. But their evidence, whatever it might be, cannot be viewed in its entirety, so it cannot be accepted.
End of proof.

Fixed that special pleading for ya.

 

[JoeMorgue]

God is defined as the answer to everything.
Therefore God is the answer to what I am arguing about.
Therefore I am correct because I say I am correct.